|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
KISSING THEIR THUMBS?
Q: I notice that Latinos in my parish kiss their thumb after making the sign of the cross. Why?
A: They actually are kissing a cross formed by placing the thumb and forefinger at right angles. Kissing the cross (as we do on Good Friday) is an ancient gesture of devotion. It implies a humble acceptance of one’s own cross in imitation of Jesus.
Terrye Newkirk
Q: Who was St. Valentine and how did his feast day of February 14 come to be regarded as a day for romance?
A: Two Valentines are listed in the Roman Martyrology for February 14. The first was a Roman priest who reportedly was martyred on the Flaminian Way during the reign of the Emperor Claudius. The other Valentine was a third century bishop of Terni who was martyred in Rome but whose relics were sent back to his home see. Some claim that there has been a confusion and that the two Valentines are really one.
The reason the feast day has come to be associated with romance has nothing to do with the two saints, neither of whom had a clear connection to lovers or courtship. The association has to do with a belief, dating at least from the time of Chaucer, that birds pair up on February 14. This belief about biology became associated with the feast of the day, and eventually the thought of courtship and romance came to dominate. In any event, the Church certainly does not teach that Valentine’s Day should be celebrated in connection with romance.
James Akin
Q: What’s wrong with consubstantiation—the view that the Eucharist is both the body and blood of Christ and bread and wine? Isn’t that more consistent with the Incarnation, and isn’t transubstantiation almost Gnostic, even Docetist?
A: Superficially, consubstantiation might seem more "incarnational" than transubstantiation, but there’s a catch. For the Eucharist to be both Jesus Christ and bread and wine, as Jesus is both God and man, Jesus would have to unite the nature of bread to himself as he united human nature to himself. It would amount to a new incarnation, a new hypostatic union. We would confess a Lord who is truly God, truly man, and truly pastry. This would demean and trivialize the significance of our Lord’s assuming our human nature.
Furthermore, such a reprise of the Incarnation would not accomplish what the Eucharist is all about: It would not make present the human body and blood of Christ. If the Second Person of the Trinity were to acquire a new, confectionery nature, this new nature would have no direct relationship to Jesus’ human nature. He would be present in the Eucharist in his divinity and his breadness, but not his humanity. His human body, born of Mary, crucified on the cross, raised from the dead, and ascended into glory, would be uninvolved.
This is not, of course, what consubstantiationists believe. They picture Christ in his divinity and his humanity juxtaposed with bread and wine, not becoming them. But this is not the incarnational principle. It is more like Nestorianism. It makes the Eucharist an amalgam of Jesus and bread, just as Nestorius made Jesus an amalgam of God and man without truly uniting the two natures in one person.
The authentic Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, by contrast, is not a repetition of the Incarnation but an extension of it. Christ is not hypostatically united to bread, but the one hypostatic union of divinity and humanity is presented to us under the appearances of bread and wine. It is not a new, independent redemptive act, but the making present of the one redemption accomplished by Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.
Stephen Greydanus
Q: I always thought Lent was a time for voluntary penance to prepare us for Easter, but a sister who gave a talk here last year said that was a "negative" approach—that we should emphasize positive acts instead. "Penance" means just accepting the troubles and annoyances that come along.
A: The traditional practices of Lent—fasting, prayer, reception of the sacraments, and almsgiving—are still encouraged by the Church. Fasting is even mandated on certain days. Far from being "negative," these are a means of escaping our self-preoccupation and entering into the mind of Christ. Through eating less, we feel some of the hunger he feels for souls, and we grasp our dependence on him for our very existence. Though prayer, we join in that perfect union of the Trinity. Through the sacraments, especially Eucharist and penance, we are drawn more closely into that union, and we obtain grace to overcome sin. Through giving away material goods, we empty ourselves in a small way as Jesus emptied himself totally on the cross; we are sharply reminded of how attached we are to trifles. All of these things make clear to us how desperately we need God’s redeeming grace.
The practice of denying ourselves some legitimate pleasure is also healthy in a culture of wanton self-gratification. It subtly catechizes us about our own weakness and the power of surrender to God.
As for penance being merely passive acceptance of trials, it is not. Certainly, we may unite all our sufferings, large and small, with those of Jesus, and there is great merit in that. Everyone suffers in this life, and "offering it up" is a fruitful use of that pain. That is not the same as assuming extra trials to make reparation for one’s own sins or those of others. One should never undertake severe penances without the permission of one’s confessor, of course.
The sister had a point, though. We can benefit spiritually by actively living our faith during Lent: performing corporal and spiritual acts of mercy, attending stations of the cross, going out of our way to encourage and praise others, inviting non-Catholics to Mass. It isn’t an either/or issue; it’s both/and.
Terrye Newkirk
Q: When will you Catholics realize that the Bible is the only thing needed by Christians. You don’t need man-made traditions.
A: There were nearly three decades between the Crucifixion and the first books of the New Testament and nearly eight decades between the Crucifixion and the last of them. Two generations at least were deprived of the Book of Revelation, surely one of the most critical of the books of the Bible. Many Christians already had gone to their deaths for the sake of Christ, but had never heard the words of Paul, for the simple reason that Paul had not yet written them. Indeed, at least one Christian died as a direct and intended consequence of Paul himself: Stephen. Are we then to exclude Stephen from salvation because he was unaware of Paul’s writings not yet written?
All the teachings of the apostles are "traditional" teachings, not "written"—"Traditional" in the radical (root) sense of the term, from the Latin "tradere," to hand over (not "down" as so many have it—nor does the idea of ‘trade,’ also derived from that verb, enter into it implying some exchange of one sort or another), simply the passing along from one to another. The Bible is the written portion of Tradition, as is amply evidenced by John himself at the very end of his Gospel, where he says that "many other things did Jesus do and say, so many, I think, that if they were all written down the world itself would not be large enough to hold the books that would have to be written to hold them." Even taken in their most gentle sense, those words inescapably mean that in no way can the Bible be taken as the complete record of everything Jesus did, said, or taught.
Most of the beliefs and practices that Fundamentalists condemn among Catholics are rooted in Sacred Tradition, the unwritten portion; though I also must make certain that it is understood that no Tradition, however longstanding, may contradict Scripture.
Revelation is of a piece; it is not a patchwork quilt, from which we pick and choose those things that please us or which may threaten us less. Salvation and revelation are a package deal—they go together, and we accept all or none.
Fr. Hal Stockert
Q: Why does the Church insist on binding its Eucharistic doctrine to the technical Aristotelian categories of "substance" and "accidents"? Why must the magisterium insist on a specific philosophical theory of matter?
A: Actually, the magisterium’s language isn’t that specific. Although the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents has been used by Catholic theologians, the Council of Trent opted for a broader distinction of substance and species, which does not necessarily imply any particular theory about the nature of the relationship (whether "accidental" or otherwise) between what a thing is and its sensible attributes. All this necessarily pins down is that the Eucharistic elements continue to manifest all the physical properties of bread and wine, but what they are has been completely changed.
Stephen Greydanus
Q: I am a Methodist currently dating a girl who is Catholic. How does the Church feel about Catholics marrying non-Catholics, and what would we have to do? (Also, I am not very attached to the Methodist faith.)
A: Mixed marriages are discouraged because they inevitably involve pain for the spouses (the only time they don't is if neither spouse cares about his or her religion), and they set a bad example for the children because the parents are not united in the most important area of life--one's relationship to God. This can lead to confusion, weak faith, and even lost faith on the part of the children.
Although mixed marriages are not recommended, the Church grants dispensations for Catholics to marry non-Catholics. To see about obtaining one you should see a parish priest.
If you are thinking seriously about marriage, I would urge you to investigate the Catholic faith and consider becoming a Catholic. It is far better on a human level if the spouses are religiously united. It is better both for children they have and for them, not only in that it prevents conflict but also in that it allows them to share true spiritual intimacy, which they otherwise are blocked from having.
This is something I can testify to from personal experience. When I was a Protestant I was in a mixed marriage with a Catholic and, although it was a very good marriage, there was a lot of pain caused by our religious differences. After my wife died, I resolved that I never again would enter a mixed marriage. It’s simply too hard on the spouses.
James Akin
Q: Even granting that Jesus chose Peter as earthly head of the Church, and the apostles as its leaders, what evidence is there that their successors assumed their power?
A: This is the real issue that separates Catholics from other Christians. I doubt very much that anybody, Fundamentalist or mainline Protestant, denies the authority of the apostles. The very fact that there were apostles and that Christ explicitly commanded them to "go forth and teach whatsoever I have commanded you" is too powerful to ignore or deny. The real problem is in the question of their transferring that mission to others who decidedly were not apostles.
That this teaching authority can reside elsewhere than solely among the apostles, is amply demonstrated. Of the four Gospels, two were written by men who were not apostles, and yet their writings bear the stamp of divine inspiration and authentic teaching. There is no record anywhere of Luke’s ever having met Christ, and he was certainly not one of the Twelve. Mark may have seen Christ in the flesh and indeed may have been the young man in the garden who fled naked when someone tore from his back the sheet he’d wrapped himself in. Matthias was chosen as apostle by the other apostles to replace Judas Iscariot. This choice was, according to the Acts of the Apostles, made directly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Once elected, he was treated exactly as one of the original Twelve.
In other words, the Bible itself shows that Jesus gave the apostles the power to appoint successors.
Fr. Hal Stockert
Q: Somebody told me that driving fast is a mortal sin. I can’t believe that. Is it?
A: Yes, if it threatens harm to you or anyone else. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 2290) says:
"The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air."
Terrye Newkirk
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
